Earl Aelfheah

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Again, being extremely critical of Israel's > policies is one thing, but a lot of the left > simply think Israel shouldn't exist. These people > are feckin morons because Israel DOES exist, and > whatever you think about how it came about, it's > there now and we'll only ever move forward if we > accept that and get on with finding solutions > rather than harping on about past screw ups. Is that true. I think a lot of people say Israel, when they mean Israel's policies (which acutally I may have done above), but that's just slightly sloppy language, I think people know what is meant. I haven't heard people on the mainstream left calling for the dissolution, or annihilation of Israel.

I actually think John Mann was pretty out of order, regardless of ones views on Livingstone. I think Ken has lost the plot personally, wading into a fire clutching a bucket of petrol to throw over it. Although it seems to be his MO nowadays. Why anyone would start talking about Hitler supporting Zionism in a discussion about antisemitism is beyond me. It's ridiculously clumsy and ill judged. That said, I am not sure this mean he's an antisemite or a racist. I'm not even sure I accept the idea that 'the left' have a particular problem with antisemitism. The left is extremely critical of Israel of course as are many others.

Here's a good summary of events https://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/how-the-internet-reacted-to-ken-livingstones-most-disastrous?utm_term=4ldqpgm&bftwuk#4ldqpgm

Apparently John Mann may be suspended too for his rant against Livingstone. Blimey.

.

This is about the fullest account of what he actually said that I have found https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/social-affairs/discrimination/news/74365/ken-livingstone-bbc-radio-london-israel-lobby-tries

What do people make of Ken's latest unwelcome ramblings? I didn't hear the interview and haven't managed to actually find a transcript of what he said, so don't really want to rush to judgment. That said, from the snippets of conversation quoted on social media it all looks rather worrying.

Thanks Londonmix, I've PM'd you.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Clear purpose- surveillance- it's the world we > live in But it says "This unit cannot identify faces or vehicle registration plates" on it.

reminds me if the 'are you thinking what we're thinking' wink and nudge campaign of michael howard. Nasty.

I don't like it. Cameras going up in the early hours with no warning or clear purpose.

I just checked, it's on You Tube. Pretty clear that the police were having to battle with 'spectators' to keep them back. :-(

I assume the garden will be part of the refurb though?

As it's main draw is the big garden, you would have thought they'd be moving heaven and earth to get it open in time for the summer. Does look a long way off completion though. :-(

It's not against the law to give a 'bad' reference, but it does have to be factual and therefore should be objectively justifiable. In other words, you should avoid bringing up deficiencies which weren't raised with the individual at the time, addressed and recorded. If you say for example "their time keeping was awful", but you never raised it, or kept any records, you could potentially end up with them suing you for the impact of your reference on their ability to get another job. You would have a hard time proving that the statement was objectively true. I would keep it simple. Include the basics (what the role was, how long they were there) and say which bits of the job they did well. If you raised specific concerns with him at the time, then it's fair to mention these too.

Weird. No idea, but would be interested to know.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rye lane is fully covered with CCTV and is full of > people day and night. Perfectly safe. How does CCTV keep anyone from being stabbed? It'll make sure the incident is filmed as will all those people who are around day and night.

Jakido Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's an M&S opening?! Why has no one mentioned > it on the Forum? Very good. :-)

My guess is they'll get a slap on the wrist and a fine, which would seem proportionate IMO.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rrr - I think the general feeling seems to be that > it will ultimately either lead to longer hours, or > thinner coverage (more patients per doctor). Yeah, this was kind of my assumption. This seems pretty undesirable and potentially dangerous to me.

@Londonmix - The government's current approach doesn't scream 'recruitment drive' to me. They may want to reconsider their 'attraction and engagement' strategy.

This is what I do not understand (genuinely, if someone can explain it, fair play). How can you ensure that there are more doctors at weekends, the same amount during the week, but with no increase in staff numbers and with them all working the same or less hours?

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No one is asking junior doctors to work more > rahrahrah! > > Doctors are being asked to work the same or fewer > hours. However, more of the shifts on the rota > would be weekends and evenings, when cover right > now is comparably low. > > Because the NHS pay more for weekend and evening > work under the old contract, the reduce the > financial impact of this change, the NHS want to > reduce pay for unsociable working times. They > have redefined basically what's considered > unsociable so they don't have to pay for early > evening shifts and shifts on Saturdays. But with no more doctors?

There are two issues here though. One is pay, on which I get that some people are fairly ambivalent. The second is how far you can stretch an already stretched resource before something breaks. I can't believe that anyone feels that doctors in training work short hours, or that it would be good for them, or their patients if they worked more. There is a shortage of Doctors in the NHS already. To increase the hours they work, without increasing overall staff numbers seems very dangerous to me, regardless of pay. I think it's here that they have extremely strong grounds to resist the changes and where most of the public are supportive.

Whilst it's true that neither employee or employer may unilaterally vary the terms of an employment contract, it is possible for the employer to serve notice (following consultation), dismiss and re-engage staff on new terms. In order to do so, the employer must demonstrate a sound business reason for needing to enact the dismissal. I think Hunt would be mad to try this however. You could see substantial numbers of staff just walking away. I have heard it suggested of course, that this is the point. It would leave him with 'no choice' but to privatise /outsource large parts of the service for the 'sake of patient safety', whilst laying the blame at the feet of the BMA.